Dear American friends

[jawnbc]

I've been meaning to write for some time, but it's never been a good time to set these words down. And that's important, because I'm afraid that some of you won't like what I have to say--so saying it right is doubly important. And it boils down to this: enough with the whining about Bush and the Republicans.

Please. Instead, do something about it. Something that involves more than bleating. Something active.

Since 2000 most of US-based friends have been wailing and railing about this guy and his ilk. And for the most part I don't disagree with your concerns: he's more theocratic, artistocratic and dogmatic than I thinks suits his high office. And while the circumstances under which he was elected back then were more than a little suspect (in FL especially), the cold stark reality is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats campaign for a majority of US votes in a presidential election. Instead they try to garner enough Electoral College votes: Gore was wailing about Alaska and Bush didn't cry about Rhode Island--they were both busy with Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And in 2004, though there wasn' the high drama of "dangling chads", the results seem to be no less satisfactory, even though both parties (again) campaigned to win the White House, not a majority level of support from all Americans. Bush, however, did win both: enough Electoral College and a majority of the popular vote. In fact, he got more votes (raw votes or percentage-wise) than Clinton did. You might not have wanted him, but clearly most of your fellow citizens--those willing to vote--did.

Since then...more and more it seems...a lot of you have used your blogs (and email) to express your frustrations, fears, pains. And that's not merely OK, that's a good thing--to a point. My concern is that the degree of outrage I see here doesn't correspond to the degree of outrage I see in the press, nor the degree of action taken by Americans to effect substantive change.

To some extent I mean political action: organizing, campaigning, even standing for office to make things different. And for those with a distaste for party politics--understandable in a 2-party, centre-right versus right-wing political system--there are all sorts of other organizations doing political organizing. And if you're concerned about ideology, pick an issue. Talk to your friends. Organize to take action yourselves; there's nothing to stop any group of concerned citizens from working together in a democracy, save time and resources. Very few of my friends here live in abject poverty; most find the time to have rich and full personal lives. Consider taking 5 or 10 hours of your month and dedicating to change.

But even if the the whole "political" thing leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, there are many other ways to help out. A lot of really good programmes sponsored by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have had their funding cut since 2000. In particular, programmes regarding sexual and reproductive health, antipoverty, HIV/AIDS and public education have been decimated--if not in raw dollars available, via "donor constraints" that require certain narrow ideological perspectives be the focus (or sole message) of said programmes. As an example, some states--like Minnesota--have been able to make do without federal funding for their sexual health programmes in high schools--but many haven't. One way for them to deliver such vital assistance is through volunteers--in many cases, sustained, long-term voluntary commitments by skilled and knowledgeable persons could return these programmes to some level of viability. Sadly, it's just not happening.

So I encourage you--no, I implore you--the next time you feel like letting rip against the Way Things Are in the US, find a way to take action to make Things the Way They Should Be. And tell us about it--what you're doing, who it helps, how others could help as well. You can make a difference. Some of you already are. And the reality is that in other parts of the world, often in places where our assumptions about democracy just don't hold true, others are doing in much more dangerous and challenging circumstances.

I generally loathe platitudes, but one of my favourites is and old "Quaker" saying: when you pray, move your feet. And if you don't pray, move 'em anyway.

Comments

[unclemike.livejournal.com]

Over 100,000 (maybe) marched in D.C. recently to protest. That's action.

The degree of outrage in the press (or at least the established old-boy press) is not really an accurate barometer of how many citizens feel, is it? That's part of our outrage right there.

And as for "most" Americans voting for him? There are still many questions about that, amigo.

Kinda hard to maintain outrage for 5 solid years, when the admin keeps topping itself.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Yes but you! You, you, you! What have YOU done?

The whole "activism is hard, let's go shopping" attitidue is not what delivers democrazy. Civic involvement is never ending. And, at the risk of sounding condescending, something I KNOW Americans to be very lazy about.

[jawnbc]

I don't think I argued for outrage. I argued for sustained action. Even going to a huge march, while being of certain value, doesn't effect concrete change at the local level. At least not with any immediacy.

There's no shortage of work to be done. There's no queue of people to do it either.

Freaking Canucks

[koaloha.livejournal.com]

ugh.

We have been fighing for 5 freaking years.

Please play ice hockey or figure skate to techno music.

Re: Freaking Canucks

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

And you will keep fighting or risk losing all your democratic rights. It is your civil duty.

Now show me some of that good ol' US patriotism!

haha.

[ayodele.livejournal.com]

this is amusing, as I keep explaining to some people in my office that there are POC-led katrina relief efforts that they know *nothing* about, and am greeted with amazement.

Re: Freaking Canucks

[jawnbc]

Well that was nuanced. Merci beaucoup.

But since you waded in:

1. are you thin-skinned to outside critique in general?
2. If you are a person to whom this doesn't apply (some who takes action) why are you being defensive?
3. Fighting is good. Working on making people's lives better is also very important. Protesting is perhaps half the job.

Re: Freaking Canucks

[devcubber.livejournal.com]

push-me-pull-you! I have one of those!

where the rubber meets the ass

[wolfbear.livejournal.com]

I mean, where the rubber meets the road. Well, same difference. It comes down to putting your car where your dick is. Not really.

What I mean is...

Homosexuals and other sexual minorites can no longer afford to be complacent about their civil rights. If you're not politicizing your life - and that has to include working for change - somehow somewhere sometime, but real work in the community - in addition to expressing your outrage - you're not helping anyone else and you're not helping yourself, for sure.

Let's get fuckin' REAL, people

[wolfbear.livejournal.com]

I'm helping out in a variety of way with the local Green party city council elections. In addition, my husbear and I just got a legal Civil Union here in Connecticut while continuing to advocate for marriage.

What the fuck are *you* doing to change the political climate.

Not many of the bloggers who respond negatively to your post will put it in terms of their personal volunteer political work. Because they can't. Because they haven't done anything themselves other than whine about it in snippy catcall responses.

[bix02138.livejournal.com]

<laughs>

this is the surest sign you've become a canadian: advice to foreigners about how to run their nation.

can a condo in hallandale be far behind?

on a less cheerful note: my belief is that the 2000 and 2004 elections were both stolen: '00 in tallahassee, miami and at the u.s. supreme court, and '04 in columbus, ohio. that is a different scenario than simply one in which a misguided plurality controls the fate of almost 300 million people.

on the other hand, we may simply be living through a rehash of the 1950s, in which case the '60s are a-comin'.

[paulintoronto.livejournal.com]

It is true that Canadians are too ready to offer advice to foreigners about how to run their nations. For some reason, we find this preferable to the logical alternative: fuck the advice, just take over the foreign nation and run it the way that we think it should be run. Not that any nation would actually try to impose its own values, views, policies and practices on the rest of the world, of course.

[that-dang-otter.livejournal.com]

The difficulty with activism is that I sense that politics today are less like democracy and more like the weather - effects of huge forces that are not amenable to change. The reflexivity of media, in particular - providing not information, but simply a mirror that we attack like a frenzied housecat - has become such a great distraction that compared to times like the 60s there simply isn't any latitude for effective action anymore.

Even seemingly laudable causes, like environmentalism or breast cancer research, have become to a great extent self-perpetuating machines that parasitize activism and drain its energy for naught. Personally, I don't even know what cause I might support, other than the negative anti-Bush cause which might not solve anything at all. Nobody has any credibility anymore. And nobody wants to be another "Hanoi Jane" - good intentions seem inadequate against the threat of involuntary foolishness.

I'm not sure that Bush is the problem. I think America is the problem.

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

I wonder if part of the problem lies in our tendency to accept that *party* politics or *organizational* politics are the major ways we can take "political" action?

I made a case for wider dissemination of safer-sex info in a response in a friend's blog this morning. And *you* posted some interesting things about "happiness" that, at least to me, had a potentially political resonance, if they were applied against some of the feelings of ineffectualness and despair circulating in our society right now.

These, to me, are small political acts. I try to make room for them every day, alongside the business of sending money to organizations that I believe get good work done, voting for politicians I believe might make a difference locally or nationally, attending meetings, using my paid work to support family members who have thrown a lot of effort into the same-sex marriage fight here in Massachusetts, and all the more traditional forms of activism or participation.

I can think of one issue where you probably already make a difference, and might be in a position to do more: the problem of meth abuse in some of the sexual subcultures you move in. You've benefitted MY work by highlighting the seriousness of the problem for me, something I now keep even more in mind than I already did.

The trick, sometimes, is to make those things a little more intentional, and to *reward* yourself for them as well, because you will, indeed, find yourself doing some of them over and over and over. As someone else in this thread said, that's how civic involvement works. Particularly in a system with as many broken spots as ours does lately.

There is still cause for hope, and *certainly* avenues to make positive change.

[envirobear.livejournal.com]

As always, Tony is very adept at putting a finger directly upon the problem...in the U.S., politics has become subject to many powerful forces that aren't easily controlled. Part of the problem is our tendency here to be so issue-oriented that we are single-issue-oriented: for example, some of jawn's friends here may only look for how a politician deals with issues of interest to gays and lesbians, but totally ignore whether s/he is supportive of positions on other things of interest--like environmental issues or cancer and HIV research. We put so much energy into our single-minded efforts that we burn out like lightbulbs left on too long. We also have another issue that our friends in Canadia may not realize: it's easier to be heard by a village council than it is to be heard by a Congress. Each M.P.'s riding in Canada represents *approximately* 115,000 citizens, while each U.S. congressional district contains *approximately* 650,000 citizens. It makes a difference.

[paulintoronto.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with anything that Jawnbc has said here, but I'll take a slightly different perspective:

I understand how demoralizing it can be for people who feel that their leader has no legitimacy, no credibility, and does not share their values. It is easy to feel that one individual can do nothing to change the overwhelming force of History and Politics.

Maybe the people who think individuals can't make a difference are correct. I don't know, and so I offer no opinion. However, I do think that individuals can make a difference in their own world, even if that is just the "wonderful world-o-me!" People who are actively involved in working for change tend to feel more positive and optimistic than people who are trapped in the paralysis of cynicism. It may be that I have reversed the order here: first you're positive, then you work for change, rather becoming positive because of the working for change, but I think that the train runs in both directions.

So maybe you can't unelect George W. Bush. Maybe you can't even clean up the Democrats in your local community. But doing something will make you feel better. I'm sure of it.

[jawnbc]

I'd agree pretty much with all this.

[mondragon.livejournal.com]

Oh puhleeeze.

Considering the context, this is just too much.

[jawnbc]

What do you mean?

[faghatesgods.livejournal.com]

Well that was certainly smug and accusatory. Very much akin to blaming a rape victim for not taking the time to cover herself properly.

How arrogant. If you really loathe platitudes, try to be less of one.

[jawnbc]

Thanks for sharing.

[devcubber.livejournal.com]

I think a really good step in getting people 'activated' is just this: talking about it, sharing information and explaining points of view.

[jawnbc]

Thanks Elise. Really means a lot to me...especially in the face of others' vitriol.

[timbear.livejournal.com]

I was listening to BBC Radio 4 yesterday and there was an article on there about racism in the USA and how in one area of South Carolina in particular the public schools were drastically underfunded and since (largely) the only kids attending the public schools are poor and black it was now being seen as a race issue and yet nothing is being done to fix the problems.

They made the point that the people affected by these problems were very poor, were often working long hours often with more than one job and trying to hold together a family at the same time and thus were genuinely unable to be shouting in the streets or standing outside their town halls protesting, or whatever because they simply did not have the time or the strength.

Maybe this is the real problem - the people who are genuinely and DEEPLY affected by the polical status quo in the USA are completely disenfranchised and those who are able to be policitally active are, to a large degree, reasonably well off - and while they don't like what they see they are not affected enough to be motivated into any meaningful action for change and therefore tend to be more "philanthropic" than "policially active".

I know I certainly have fallen into that trap over here in the past, simpy giving money to charities that help those less fortunate yet fight strongly for issues that affect me directly. Call it selfish if you will, looking back on it, I think that's exactly what how I'd describe my actions, although my justification at the time was different.

We are all insualar on one level or another ...

[jawnbc]

Makes sense to me.

[alec9.livejournal.com]

i read your post, read most of the comments and then read your post again. I think most of what you say is correct, and I find it odd that people get defensive. if you are politically or socially active, then the post ain't aimed at you. if you are not active, then either you disagree or agree with J's diagnosis with what you should being doing more of.

As far as being an expat. if J had made all the same statements and been a social worker in an american slum, would the statements/opinions have been any more or less true? Differenlty informed, yes. But would his ability to se the big picture be better? I dunno. As one of the guilty ones who probably doesn't do enough, I really take J's comments to be a plea or call to action and less of a haranging. Actually, sometimes to remind me to get my ass in gear I need to be harangued a little bit.

I think one of the main probs is that J notes the bitching in blogs and then looks at the gestalt picture of US activism (mediated by various filters - from the media to personal knowledge of how some friends do or do not act etc. etc.) and then claims to have a legit insight into how most people in the US do or do not act. Its hard to know how much bitching in blogs is really just blowhardism, and how much is backed by action. Also blog blowhards may not represent an accurate picture of the population at large. Then again, he is posting a blog to fellow bloggers.

I think we are inclined to make generalizations based on our best summation of the slice of the world we can see. We all do it, we have to, there's too much info not to be forced to generalize, assuming we want to have an opinion on anything other than the color of our own poo - but the very limitations on the slice of our worldview "sample" in relation to the actual world, lead to room for massive possibilty of error and judgment (or accuracy)

J doesn't feel too far off to me. Maybe we should all educate ourselves better as to what people out there are really doing. I didn't feel like J's post wasa call for me to raie my hand defensively and say "but I'm doing this and this." but if everyone here did that - we all might be more informed and empowered by the knowledge of what real people ARE doing that is in effect adding a sandbag to hold out the shitstorm that is our world.

The plea to do more isn't such a bad thing. The mild contempt for those who armchair quarterback is not misplaced. There may be a legit question whether any of us can fairly armchair QB the armchair QBs without looking holier than thou, I guess I'd rather take the question "Can I do more?" to heart rather than ask if the person who poses the question has enuff creds to be allowed to ask it.

with apologies to my own lack of knowledge, insight, and coherence of argument ( i'm supposed to be working on making entertainment to opiate the masses right now)

[jawnbc]

Thanks Alec. You've pretty much summarized what I was trying to say in the post.

I guess I find it disheartening that the most cogent reply to my post was "you're not from here, shut up": that sort of nsularity is treacherous. Taht, and the falllow attempts to character assasinate...well jeez, that's not terribly thoughtful either.

That these tacks areperhaps the most popular schticks of right-wing pundits and politicos...people so many here claim to loathe...doesn't say a lot about some "liberals".

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

Not to resurrect a difficult conversation, but I guess what I can contribute to this is my perspective as a person who feels relatively certain that I'm doing my bit to make the US better AND as a person who took the initial post a little hard.

The contrast between my reaction and that of my (literal, not figurative) brother alec9, who shares a great many of my values and perspectives, but who didn't get upset, is probably instructive. I suspect I put more time into political activism than Alec does, which ought to make me "not one of the people being spoken to" in the original post. And yet Alec seems to have been less "hurt" by the post's tone.

Alec's got a somewhat thicker skin than I do, probably always has. As a result, I think he's better motivated by a smart "harangue" than I am.

Beyond our personal differences, however, I think one issue is that my thin skin is partly related to my situation as a queer man. I already face a certain number of day-to-day stresses that Alec, as a straight guy, often doesn't. It may be easier for him to absorb a harangue because he's not already as emotionally taxed.

Jawn, your audience, alas, is probably heavier on queer people who already live with stress than it is on smart straight guys with thick skins.

Some deal with that stress reasonably and thoughtfully and non-dramatically when reminded, thoughtfully but sternly, that there is MORE to do. But my time on LJ has taught me that the world is littered with good people who take offense at the well-meant thoughts of other good people.

I guess the question is, if you're talking to people in an attempt to be helpful and motivational, are there ways of phrasing things that are consonant with your values and yet that don't press certain buttons?

The answer may, of course, be "nope."

I admit, the thought crossed MY mind: jeez, this makes PERFECT sense, and indeed it's EXACTLY like things I think myself ... but even knowing I'm more among those who are the solution and less among those who are the problem, this feels like it's a little hard to hear *in this tone of voice* from someone who, for whatever good reasons, isn't stuck in the middle of it in the same way. That's why I stuck to telling Tony Berno what I admire about his actions in the world, rather than joining in the "ow, this hurt, you hurt me" chorus.

Sometimes people do learn through being smacked. In a forum like this, though, it doesn't surprise me that the smack sometimes hits people it wasn't necessarily intended to hurt.

I'm just musing aloud, but I guess I wanted to let you know that I both agree with you AND understand why others seem to have reacted with hurt and return-hurt.

[jawnbc]

I'll be candid: I sought to be clear and pointed, without dissing or attacking anyone personally, but expecting to get some real resistance to what I said. I still think I did that: that some folks claim I attacked them doesn't mean it happened. I actually find the "shitting on the already shitted upon" very disturbing: if a community cannot critique its own--or, more accurately, if allies cannot critique one another--how on earth will we ever stand against the critiques of the real enemies?

When I have an emotional reaction to things like my posting, I try to ask questions. Or make alternative points. Not attack the person posting. It's that aspect I reject of having any crediblity or validity from how koaloha, elijoi and to a lesser extent mondragon responded. They dismissed the relevance of my voice because they didn't like the message.

That's not only crappy, that's perpetuation of the dynamics of oppression.

I didn't post "as an American" but someone tried to justify their response because I've written in my LJ about being an ex-pat. They conveniently didn't integrate the sustained degree of civic engagement I've written about in my LJ. They picked aspects of my story that allowed them to feel justified in attacking me. It's a narrow, specious interpretation of how my life is--but if that were the picture of me painted in my LJ, it would at least make sense.

And I still don't believe for a minute that many of the big Bush bitchers-and-moaners are doing much to help queer kids, poor folks, and the others more often suffering under the regime. in fact shrieking at me only makes me believe it more.

And I still think that most reasonable people, after reflection, would acknowledge that my comments have a degree of validity--even if they dislike me or my message. And folks to whom this doesn't apply should get on with what they've been doing.